tv [untitled] May 24, 2011 2:30pm-3:00pm PDT
lesser treated water for irrigation. my sense is that rec and parks did that, and we may have to go to them. this becomes much more financially viable base and also could be addressed. our organization, we do not have many concerns about the golden gate park area, but there are many groups that do, and it has taken longer to find an alternative, but on the whole, i think the plan looks good. >> good afternoon. my name is joan. girardo,
we hope to get some comments in by friday, but we have some concerns based on the demand, and it seems to be changing almost monthly. table three says we're going to have over 900,000 people. that is 79,000 people more than we say now. and yet, in this scenario, if it comes true, they are projecting an increase of over 90,000 households during that time period. at 2.4 persons per household, according to the documentation of the average citywide, we agree to have an increase of over 200,000 people so those projections are out of whack, and if we are using 50 gallons per person per day, we would have to have another 10 million gallons per day to service that
repopulation. will that happen? i do not know. the planning department and politicians and planning committee are aggressively promoting population growth in the city, so these are the projections. that is one problem that we see. another one is that the demand projections are not talking about full buildout. they always say the number of units in a development and not the number of bedrooms. there is a big difference here for the number of people that can be put into this housing. we also have a concern about the ground water program because it appears that a consultant in the peninsula since the state field for the whole offer is about 10,000 acres the current year, and i believe the peninsula -- that the offer -- aquifer is
about 7,000 acres, and we would not be able to draw the 4 million acres per day which the projection is for. they might not come on line in time. i am concerned about the period of time between 2015 and 2020 as far as enough water supply is concerned, and i think another consideration is the aggressive conservation. 66% of the city lives in bolten family dwellings where there is no meter. they are unmetered, so there is no motive. i think those numbers projected are high. those are our concerns. president vietor: thank ycommis?
i have had one conversation with steve, and i will have more before this comes back. one of my objections for this document is to the extent that recounted this time, we give meaningful definition to the challenge we face in making the decisions of 2018, and i think we are part way there. i do not think we are all of the way there yet. some of that depends on the urban water management plans for our whole fill customers' -- are wholesale customers. but i think this is clearly the time that we need to be clarified that challenge, and i think we have a good start on the information to do that. interestingly, the next and this comes up to be around 2015, and by that time, we should be able
to describe what the devil we are doing for the 2018 challenge, so i think the timing is actually fortuitous, that this is a good kick off to preparing this commission to making the decisions, and 2015 will be a good time for the culmination of that. any other comments? seeing none, i will call the public hearing closed. secretary housh: the next item is regular business. item 11, to authorize the public utilities commission to have a memorandum of agreement with the municipal utility district, contra costa, santa clara valley water district, an alameda county flood control and water conservation district, an amount not to exceed $200,000 to conduct site specific analysis to further work on the project.
the analysis will provide information necessary to proceed with crested design, permitting, an environmental review. >> steve ritchie agsain. -- agaion -- again. we have narrowed down the sights for contra costa as a potential in take site where this plant could be built and could result in water that could be through a variety of mechanisms be shared by more than one agency. the contra costa water district would basically be intake. the utility district's system is the one that would then be the most key to actually allowing
water into their system, whereby they could potentially use the water, or they could wheel that water to other areas. we could potentially share water lily of the water district, as well, so there are a lot of different options for moving water around, and there is also the possibility to use delta water, for those who use delta water. we reported previously there was a pilot project conducted at that site in 2009 to give us information on the physical characteristics of the plant that might be necessary, so what we are looking at here are four things to be determined. one is hydraulic modeling of a system to see how it would actually work, and the slide
shows the dark land across the talked -- top, which is the aqueduct. they would share water into the other systems, ultimately getting to how much it would cost. the water for other parties would be one of the key points. the second with the hydrological modeling of the delta and surrounded the environment to make sure the intake in the location we're talking about would not have any significant adverse environmental impact. the third evaluation is the carbon footprint, a concern to all of us, and since desalinization is a high energy user, what are the implications there for this project, and then four, starting to have a public outreach plan. my anticipation would be in about 18 months when this study is complete, that the the time
when san francisco and the other party would really have to decide if they see a project here that they really want to pursue as a project. i joke a little bit with the other parties that it has been easy to study because about half of the money comes from the state of california, but we are getting past that we now, where people have to put in real money for a real project that they want. we were interested in 9 million per day for study purposes. we would be looking at a specific number for this project if we choose to pursue it based on information available, so the item before you today is to sign a memorandum of agreement with the other parties in the amount of $200,000 for a series of studies, at which point we will be in a position to decide if we want to invest in this truly of the project or not. president vietor: thank you.
commissioners? any questions? commissioner: i have a quick question. are we referring to the grant money or some other fund could >> the grant money has already been used. this would be money i believe from retail and wholesale customers. i have got a different answers on that about whether it is coming out of retail or joint, but it basically comes out of an index , so that is cash that they are contrary to two. commissioner: the grant money is planning, in this is for surveying -- and this is for surveying? president vietor: public comment? >> art jenson. a couple of points.
steve and i talk about this project frequently, and we have a running question as to who is paying for this, and i think in general, it would be good for many of these projects that have a regional flavor to them, like your own water supply projects, but if the items made it clear who is benefiting in who is paying. in our understanding, this is a joint project, a two-thirds contribution last year made for this, to launder thousand dollars for this year korea eyharts -- this year. we always want to be clear on what is the project. what is the project and what is the project for the sfpuc. these do not necessarily conflict a think they are worth noting. the mention the 9 million
gallons per day, and in the staff memo on the second page, in the first box, last paragraph, it talks about approximately 20 year round for joke -- 407, think it was, for some group of people. at any rate, it is talking about a year around supply. there are a number of things that might go to, one which might be for the work in calaveras and crystal springs. it could be used in different ways, but in the past, this project has always been presented as described in the second whereas of the resolution, which is to meet the customer's needs of the various parties, during pothole. keepers of emergencies, so there is a big difference in terms of benefit as to whether this is an ongoing supply or whether in this supply during the time the
shortfall or emergency. it is possible that it is to make up for yield that is now going into the streams, that it is a little bit of both, but we would like to be very clear on what the money is buying. the last comment i would make, and this is something i suspect will come out of the details of the study as things get for the refined that refers to a water district as being able to receive water that goes through the system, and that may be a five-day. i can imagine situations where it would not. where they are using capacity of your system during a drought, where your regional customers and your wholesale customers would like to use that capacity during a drought, so those are things we will be looking at so there is no conflict and so we are sure that the benefits are going to be there, and i am sure steve is looking to make sure your customers are protected, as well.
president vietor: 80. a question for mr. richie -- thank you. >> period of supply shortfall or emergencies. a supply shortfall is a very broad phrase, to meet future demands, or it could be a time of drought. for study purposes, for the supply shortfall, we are looking at the water can be used to make up the flow requirements that we are using right now, or it could be used for future water supplies for our wholesale customers, as well. those are both on the table for this. president vietor: so there is nothing that goes toward the dry
your supply only? if it turns out that that is something we need every year? >> well, actually, the study of the block some overtime. everyone was interested in dry year supply, and no one was interested in multiyear supply, so you would have a plan that might operate out of 10 years only one, and that could be done, and since that time, we have had changes in our needs, and we're looking towards 2018 and beyond, and we said let's look at every year water for us. this is so that you would at least, the way the study is currently configured, you would have a plan that operates full- time, and there would be what would be for those only one to
dry your water. president vietor: i am wondering if we should modify the language for future supply and take up the supply shortfall emergencies? >> i do not see any difficulty with that. i am looking at staff to see if there is anything from the partners that would make that -- president vietor: i guess one question is whether it matters. if we decided we wanted to use them for more than that, it would be under ceqa.
president vietor: ok. >> there is nothing. president vietor: i would like to move upset to refer more generically to future supplies. and could i have a second? >> does that have to go to the of the parties? >> no. this and be more clear situation of san francisco a tent -- intent. president vietor: is there a second?
the whole transmission issue gets my interest. through my periodic reading of the water supply agreement, every time i read it, i learn something new, and one of the things i was looking at is the up the wholesale customers and there are a whole bunch of variations on that theme. if a wholesale customer comes in and has obtained a water supply for use above their 184, not an emergency supply, a permanent supply, and requests for transmission to accommodate it, and i could not see anything in there that covers that particular circumstance. there are certainly interests on
the part of whoever is requesting that and other interests for everybody else the is in the system and may have some interest senate, and as we were talking, maybe even other agencies, so it becomes important. i am absolutely convinced that within the next few years, we will have some of our wholesale customers coming to us with exactly that kind of request, and i wanted to start thinking about it, and i know that staff needs to think about it, as well. that is just a comment on the item itself. anything more from the commissioners? any public comments? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am eric brooks. i and the chair of the san francisco green party. just on the desalination
component, you have heard me touch base on this before, but this is something that in the last meeting that you have, there was a brief mention of a big possibility of de- stalinization, and now all of a sudden, we have got an action item that we will move forward, and the fact that not very many environmental groups are here is representative of the fact that this is coming as a surprise to us that this is moving today, and a lot of environmental groups, you have heard from clean water action and others, and other groups would want to weigh in on this. it is my view that desalinization is exactly the wrong strategy to deal with climate change and water problems. it is very similar with dealing with sea level rise and other
problems with building levees instead of by doing what is being encouraged, which is a very extensive program of creating wetlands mitigation for water so that we are not battling with the addition, we are working with the ocean, and we are working with the bay, and i would just come back to what commissioner caen were in the pointed out very early in this meeting today in that where we need to be targeting our waters strategies is on storage. but we have not even touched the tip of the iceberg on storage. wedone in places in australia, providing rain barrels to every single location that uses water in the city and massively storing up water. that is how to solve water problems, not by using huge
amounts of energy to remove salt and chemicals and other materials from water in a way that will endanger wildlife or directly harm wild wild life. we need to rethink this, and i think it is very premature for the sfpuc to join in with a desalination program like this, and as i believe that commissioner tom t -- commissioner torres one discuss this before we move forward with this, and he is even in favor of desalinization, so i really feel we need to have that conversation before you move forward to moving to wonder thousand dollars in desal. thank you. president vietor: thank you.
any other public comment? commissioner: i the question for mr. brooks. it is unfortunate that commissioner torres is not with us today. at the part where that we are investigating water supply options that helped more reliably serve customer needs during. the short fall or during emergencies and skipping to the relevant provision, the party's proposed to continue investigations and analysis in the development of the joint desalinization project. this was not in any way contemplated prior to this meeting? because i am seeing action, i am seeing a commitment to continue investigating and analyzing.
is this still going too far from where you thought commissioner torres was coming from? >> it is possible that the commissioner would even be favre for this, but his opinion was that we needed to flesh out. also, your environment to a chair is not here, and i would think for us to move forward with this desalinization, which is a very controversial thing if not outright bad, i would want to see the full commission here and give us some time to get some public comment out here to say what we think about desalinization and then decide on whether we're going to do it to moderate thousand dollars appropriation. i think the appropriation is the issue. $200,000 to a desal project, it is that, to a public hearing before -- i watch e of these he. this is quite a surprise, but it
is an action item already. commissioner: have we gone too far, in your mind, without commissioners torres and vietor here? >> yes, i think so. but it's like the idea is to study desal,. if there is no reason to do this today, i would say to wait until we have a full compliment of commissioners until we can get the word out to other
groups, like save the bay and others, and we need to have that full conversation, and i do not feel that had happened at all, so i would encourage you to bomb this until we have a full complement of commissioners to have a more in-depth -- i would encourage you to bump this. commissioner caen: this has come before us today. this is not new. we have already agreed to go in concert with three other districts to investigate it. that is all we are doing, and we agreed to do in a while ago. mr. ritchie? 2003. >> that is a long time. when i emailed people, they said they were surprised this was happening so fast.
vice president moran: commissioner courtney's question. >> i was at a hearing last week for cal water, and the chair from the san mateo planning commission was there and ask a lot of good questions, and one of them was, well, with less local water available and other restrictions, where is our water going to come from, because i been approving a lot of housing developments assuming the water is going to be there, but your plan does not convince me, and whether it is was, "well, we are going to look into desal," and she said that did not make her more comfortable because there is a lot of controversy over that.
climate change, using all of this energy to produce a water source piccata adding to greenhouse gases, so i think it is a good point. you're going to hear from organizations that are concerned at some point, and maybe it is better to hear in the first place, because i do not think people believe things are moving forward with dessal, -- desal, and $2,000 is a lot of money, so i think it would begin to notify people that this was on the agenda. vice president moran: any other further comments? at the wing commissioner caen: 's -- echoing commissioner caen's comments, as we go into